sides. if we do so in the middle of a bear market that may be on the bearish ♪ ♪ melissa: i'm melissa francis, and here's who made money today. the bulls who are all in on the s&p 500, the index hit a new all-time high today topping the previous record set on april 11th. tech stocks like hewlett-packard, ibm and microsoft helped lead the way. the s&p 500 is up nearly 12% this year. also making money, lo lean jobs, the widow of steve jobs. lorene's trust is disney's largest shareholder, and disney's stock rose nearly 2% today. she owns close to 131 million shares of disney. that means she scored a gain of clash 148 million -- $148 million. well done. also, bill knight, nike's stock

hit an all-time high tay closing at 62.63 a share. knight owns close to 2.9 million shares of nike. he made a one-day gain of $2.14 million. even when they say it's not, it's all about mt. -- about "money." ♪ ♪ melissa: so our top story tonight, there is money everywhere in the state of pennsylvania, they know right where to find it. the state is raking in $200 million in levies and taxes from the fracking boom, and that money is pouring right back into the communities responsible for it. states like new york and california, by the way, are hammering the rich to fill those fiscal holes. can more states follow pennsylvania's lead and stop just bleeding the everyday worker dry? for more on this i'm joined by robert bryce from the manhattan institute. robert, thanks for coming on the

show. >> sure. melissa: first of all, this is quite a windfall when you look at the individual towns. i was reading a story about cumberland township in pennsylvania. they raked in half a million bad bucks, they bought a fire truck, a police cruiser, a new pavilion -- i don't know if you get that at home depot or what the deal is with that -- they also bought a ride-on mower. could other towns and states be doing this? >> well, the boom is on everywhere, melissa, and in all of the states that are producing oil and gas. pennsylvania has had big political fights over whether to have impact fees such as they're doing and distributing that money into the communiti where there is a lot of drilling. other states, though, are using the severance tax model. and if you look at the latest census data, in 2012 severance tax revenue in those states was up by 29%. i mean, we're seeing huge increases, huge really windfalls for oil and gas -- melissa: okay, let me slow you

do because i don't think everybody know what is a severance tax is. are you saying the way this is being distributed is different? in other words, you know, it's based on how much your town is actually producing, or is it going out evenly? what's the point you're making? >> severance -- great. i'll slow down here. [laughter] severance taxes are levied on oil and gas production, and it's generally a volume metric levy. the volume of gas, the volume of oil that's produced is assessed a tax. different states havedifferent percentage taxes that they impose, but in the state of north dakota, for instance, they use a severance tax model. severance taxes are now providing about 56% of the entire north dakota budget. so the shale gale is having huge economic um pacts for multiple states. melissa: now, i look around the country atther places where they're hurting for cash, new york comes to mind, you look at california. they have the natural resources they could actually harvest to plug some of these gaps.

i mean, new york, for example, could see revenue of up to $3.4 billion --1.4 billion by 2020, that's according to the manhattan institute. and that's, you know, if they just pulled in the revenue that could be generated by fracking. california, 4.5 billion. what are the odds you think these states get on the band bandwagon? >> well, i'm not holding my breath for new york, melissa. the state has been dithering over the issue of fracturing now for a long time. what's more interesting, in my view, is what's happening in california. just last month governor jerry brown, who has long been one of the leading environmentalists among state politicians in the u.s., he was asked about hydraulic fathering. he says he want to get greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going. brown was clearly, in my view, leaning toward doing more oil and gas production in california, and there are huge resources there. melissa: well, that's interesting because just in the past week or so i think it was the epa said they had gone back

over the data, and when they looked at the emissions that came from fracking, they were actually 20% lower than they had previously thought. so maybe if the epa is softening its stance on fracking, which, i mean, this was their study, their paper. they're the ones that came out and said it. maybe that would give california's governor cover to rake in some of in the money? >> that's a great point, melissa, and it's a key one because we've heard for many months now from the hard left, the green left, sierra club, greenpeace, etc., claiming these huge numbers of natural gas emissions into the atmosphere because it's a more potent natural gas than co2, they were claiming it was just as bad as coal. in fact, this new data shows much lower emissions than they expected. melissa: right. >> it's clear, natural gas is having very positive impacts on the environment if we can just let it run. melissa: yeah, we'll see. robert bryce, thanks for coming on. >> thanks, melissa.

melissa: boeing's nightmare may be finally over. ethiopian airlines has become the first country to fly the 787 after the debacle, and japan completed their own successful test flight. i mean, look, the planes aren't crashing, but will passengers actually get onboard, and has the battery fix ruined one of the main selling points of the 787? joining me now, peter gold, former managing director of the national transportation safety board. peter also advised boeing on their recent hearings. peter is not authorized to speak for boeing. peter, let meask you simply, is the nightmare for boeing over? >> i think it pretty much is. i mean, the fixes are taking place across the world. the plane is getting back in the air. and i think after 100,000 hours of review that the multiple levels of protection that are now build into the -- built into

the plane, i think it's going to work. i think the plane is going to have a successful relaunch. melissa: tell me about the fix, though, because it's my understanding that it added up to 100 pounds a plate, i guess, that insulated the battery in case the same thing happened. doesn't that sort of negate why the battery was going on there in the first place, because it was so much lighter? >> well, the batteries were lighter and more powerful. but really on a plane this size of the 787, 100 pounds is really not a make or break number. e mean, what they've done sr. i mean, what they've done is increased the insulation, they've increased the monitoring of the use of the battery, and most importantly they've enclosed it in this a titanium structure that really will prevent any fumes, any smoke from leaking out should there be any kind of heat event inside. melissa: but by heat event, that's a code word for fire. and i've got to tell you as a passenger, i don't feel a lot better if the fire is just

contained in a nice little box on the plane that i'm on. that doesn't make me feel good. >> well, i think, i think the multiple layers of protection that they've got in there including, you know, there's much more monitoring of the batteries coming out of the factory. there's new ways in which they're utilizing the batteries. they're going to pull the battery after use to see if there's any, you know, degradation of it. i don't think there's going to be -- melissa: you think it's okay? i'm not an aeronautical engineer, i just have a lowly degree in economics. so it makes me nervous to think of a flaming box like underneath my seat. this is, this is safe? i can still fly? what happens to the plane if it catches fire and it's contained in this box and i'm flying right above tt? >> i don't think you'll even know it because they have an increased venting system. they're going to put the plane down. but i think the chances of that is very low. and i think we'll see over the next six months as these planes

come back into service that they're really going to make a difference. and passengers are going to like them. melissa: yeah. >> i mean, this is a really unique plane. melissa: yeah. >> with passenger comforts, and most importantly with efficiencies that are just not seen on today's aircraft. melissa: okay. so you obviously feel good about this. would you put your mom, your cuds on this plane? you're good? >> absolutely. i'd get on it tomorrow. i'd want to be on the first flight. i mean, i think there's going to be lot of people monitoring, you know, the status of these batteries and how the planes are flying. and, remember, neither one of these events that took place were what they call safety of flight issues. one took place on the ground. they were not threatening the safety of the passengers or the viability of the aircraft. melissa: okay. all right. peter, i don't know if i'm convinced, butut i'm going to think about that flaming box and try to get okay with it. thanks for coming on, we appreciate it. of.

>> thank, melissa. melissa: i'm just kidding. would you fly on a 787 now that their batteries are, you know, fixed? we want to hear from more of you. facebook.com/melissa francis, or follow me on twitter. it's fun. melissa a. franc. now, we have got some breaking news on morgan stanley along with ratings from s&p and moody's. adam shapiro brings it all to us. >> reporter: you remember there was the settlement on friday with the plaintiffs who were suing the firms over bad ratings. well, according to "the wall reet journal," that settlement of the two suits is actually going to cost $225 million. s&p and moody's are going to be paying that. and "the wall street journal" also reported that s&p, moody's as well as morgan stanley each paid 75 million to settle those lawsuits. the payout was kept confidential by the three firms. the plaintiffs, there were 14 in all, they were led by the ab -- abu dhabi investment firm.

of but the news right now is suits are going to cost $225e million to sett on friday. the amount had not been disclosed. melissa? melissa: all right. adam, thank you for bringing that to us. gold's price slump puts the mining industry on the rocks. a top executive says gold is set for a trn around, but one of our favorite gold bearers says not so fast. both of them joining us to debate it. that's coming up next. plus, afghanistan's president reportedly receives tens of millions of dollars in ghost money from us, the cia, from you. should we have just burned that cash instead? is why it may be making a bad situation even worse. more "money" coming up.

♪ finish. ♪ ♪ melissa: gold has been losing a little bit of its luster lately. its price gained today, still down more than 12% since the start of the year fueled by concerns about deflation and a slowing u.s. economy. patrick is the chairman of eastern resources, he says the gold mining industry has bright days ahead, but jonathan hoenig, our beloved fox news contributor, sees a much darker

future. they both join me now. patrick, thanks for coming on. i want to give you time to lay t your case here. >> sure. melissa: you've got to stick with this for the long haul, obviously, so you can't be influenced by, you know, the hills and valleys in gold. but it's got to be hard to resist that. >> certainly, anybody in the business is sensitive to gold prices. but it's largely dependent upon, you know, where you bought your assets at, what kind of investment you have and what capital infrastructure you're all in operating cost per ounce. and in our particular situation, being domestic in montana, acquiring the properties we own on the right basis, very, very low exploration costs per ounce, lot of existing infrastructure, you know, our cash costs is in the $5-$600 range. when we bought our core assets, gold was 251 an ounce. it has sold off a bit, certainly we'd love to the see higher prices --

melissa: but you're not looking at 500 anytime soon. the problem i have with gold is it's so emotional. it's not like copper, you don't put itin very many things. even when it's used for jewelry, it still doesn't go away. you can always melt it down. so it has to do with how you feel about your currency, your economy. tough to invest based on other people's emotions. >> correct. yeah, and gold has a tendency to kind of come down like an elevator and go up like an escalator or maybe a staircase. melissa: okay, yeah. >> so i think what we're seeing here is a little bit of an aberration in the market where it was almost a triple witch with what was happening in the chinese economy, the currency exchanges behind the scenes, and, you know, we're seeing the gold price start to rebuild, and here, you know, we're pretty happy with current pricing actually. melissa: yeah. although, you know, there are fears out there now about deflation and about a slowing economy. before i let jonathan loose, where do you see the price of gold going over the next year? >> yeah, i mean, we pull back

our own internal, most of the models we're running are in the 12 to $1400 range. melissa: really? >> we see 1485 maybe by year end. it looks like with the outlook where it is on the economy, the more money being printed certainly by almost all countries in the world including japan, we think long-term the way you get out of that mess is through inflation. and that would probably bode well for gold going further. melissa: but you said 1485, we're at 1475 right now. so you think we're near a top for the next year or two. >> well, we could be in the trading range in here for a while in terms of seeing gold go back and forth within this realm. it could test the bottoms again from our own, from the way we're looking at things. melissa: you sound very logical, not very bullish. >> i mean, we're in the business of making gold, and, you know, if our -- you know, the way we look at it if you can grow grain for $5 a bushel and sell it for

10, you're in business. melissa: okay. jonathan, i hear you chomping at the bit because that was a very well thought out and logical argument. >> i just have to ask patrick, just a few years ago weren't you in the business of movie production? as i understand it, your company is just a few years old in the gold game, and it's also a growing concern, right? >> yeah. we acquired these assets, jonathan, back in the year 2000. >> so let me just say, i mean, if the future for gold so bright, you would expect the shares of gold miners such as yours would actually be doing well. yours is doing poorl as i understand it, and, melissa, as is the price of gold. melissa: you're rough. >> the fundamentals in this case i don't think really matter. we've had high gold prices and 12 years of deflation, of low inflation. we've had high gold prices during good and bad economies. melissa: but, jonathan, i mean, take apart this argument. if he's in 500, is that your cost at the mine?

>> sure. melissa: is that your cost in total in. >> that's our cost per ounce, $550 an ounce. and we've been investing -- at our core we run a fund, so we have a fairly diversified -- melissa: yeah. you're private equity, right? >> that's correct. we've actually been in the mining business since 1986. so ww've been around the business for a while. and we look at it a little bit different, maybe a little more pragmatically from what wee seeing. i think the sector itself has some challenges surrounding emerging market risks which is what's happening and where you may see assets getting socialized. the sector's also facing burgeoning cap -- melissa: let me let jonathan in one more time. i say to you, jonathan, he's not saying the price -- we've had other people saying gold's going to 2,000, 3,000. he's saying i'm in at 550, so i'm good. >> well, you know, forgive me. i mean, i take -- anyone who's had a house arrest from the sec as our other guest has, i take what he says about his industry

with a big grain of salt. we've had 12 years of a bull market in gold. in my opinion, i think it's over, and the market seems to agree with me. even today aem, which is a real gold mining company at a new 52-week low. opinions are often wrong, the market never is, and right now gold is extremely weak on the board. melissa: you want to get a final word in. >> sure. i don't disagree with some of the things jonathan's saying. i think most of the problems don't relate to domestic assets. i think there's a, you know, there's a good case to be made when you're looking at overall business case here, you know, based upon cost factors. when we bought these assets, we paid, basically gold was 251 an ounce. we were paying a very, very low cost for the properties themselves. melissa: okay. guys, great debate. thanks for coming on, both of you. >> thank you. melissa: afghanistan's president reportedly scored tens of millions of dollars in ghost money from the cia over the years. is it money well spent, or has

it fueled the war's chaos? a top expert joins us with reaction. that's coming up next. plus, is hollywood making insider training seem like less of a crime? steve cohen's sec capital scandal inspires a new drama. has he been convicted by hollywood? do you ever have too much "money"? ♪ muck. ♪ ♪

melissa: a new report alleges tens of millions dollars in cia ghost money has been paid to afghan president hamid karzai's office. "the new york times" says that it's all the name of influencing him and gaining access to his inner circle. and get this, the paper says our tax dollars were stuffed into suitcases, backpacks, each plastic bags, being dropped off at karzai's office. it begs t question, was this a

good or a bad investment for the u.s.? joining me is fox news middle east analyst washington leader if o race. welcome back to the show. i have so many questions. >> thank you. melissa: let's start with what did we think we were getting -- first of all, do you believe the story? let's start there? >> well, if the statement has been made, it is believable, it should be investigated. but this is a story that's now in the media and has not been denied by the persons or entities that have been part of it. but in the state of war in general terms, let's not be surprised that intelligence services have national security funds at their disposal to use to counter the enemy. in this case probably in the early stage at least funds have been given to or channeled to president karzai's endage and himself to sway the parliament leader. that was in the first stage. but then the other stages have a different story. melissa: so they say we are trying to maintain access to his inner circle. do you feel like that worked? >> well, it has worked under the

soviet union, but the issue here is how do we consider him? is he a foe or an ally? usually you spend money if you're dealing, if you're spying on, in fact, to get information or influence against an adversary. but in this casefghanistan has been considered at least as an ally. now, it is possible that some of that money was fneled into the system so that they would use it against the influence of the taliban and get information to the agencies and to the united states. melissa: yeah, see, that's i think what makes me the most nervous. i understand bribes go on to buy influence, and you're in foreign territory, i can almost buy that. but in this case it feels like we're giving money directly and also a isn't restricted, that isn't subject to oversight, that isn't even counted in most cases. i mean, they can't even say, the people who are involvedelling us this story, can't even say for sure how much money ever

went except it's something like tens of millions of dollars. so it is a normal practice to give money directly and then also tens of millions under the table? >> look, we will know more as there is a serious congressional inquirinto it. but in general terms, intelligence services have a block of money they can use in a confrontation. but at certain levels of government there are policymakers, there are decision makersho should know. maybe not the details, but who should know on afghanistan to maintain influence, it is costing us that much money. now, when you mention the issue of investment, it deals with another issue. was it wise to invest with president karzai and his administration for that long? melissa: right. >> not with society. i mean, i have been raising the issue of funding ngo in afghan society, funding women's movements, students' movements, artists. this is a real guarantee for the future when the taliban would try to return. in the case of president karzai, maybe in the beginning that was useful, but on the lon run to

have a foundaon of power based on foreign money or intelligence money is shaky. melissa: yeah. and that's really the problem is that when it's unrestricted and when it's not subject to any sort of controls and it's this hush money cash that no one's following, who is deciding who is the right person to receive it? who decides who deserves the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, that this is the best choice to give to this person rather than to this person in the me country? how do you even decide in. >> look, anything that goes outside the normal principles and parameters oforeign aid that is us thed in congress -- discussed in congress and negotiated with the administration, and then it goes nickel and dime and everything is known. outside that in the realm of con front talkings, the french used to call it deny confrontation, meaning blackmun you don't know where it's going, there must be at some point in government a level that should know about the sums. and then they should know about the goal.

have we obtained those goals? but below that, it's at the discretion of those who can make those decisions in the agencies. melissa: if this is just one instance, how much money do you think is going on around the world like this? if this was tens of millions, do you think we have a billion dollars floating around out ther how big is this problem, do you think? >> it could be very close to that if you add not just u.s. money, but the other money. we're talking about russia, the chinese with how much cash that they have and all the other networks that are nonstate actors. it could be very close to that if you look at the interest that they a trying to protect. and in the case, for example, the taliban may have one thing, the american money given to karzai or the afghan government was to counter in principle the petrol money coming from the gulf. melissa: so, i mean, is that a justification? do you think that it works in that instance? if that's the money going against, you know, ironically it's all our money anyway because the petrol dollars are

coming from us as well. >> we are paying hem, for sure. but the real issue is the result. did that money give u a result. do we have an afghanistan where civil society is ready to resist against the taliban? no. so that money was not a great investment. the principle is good, but the actors were not that good. melissa: walid, thanks for coming on. >> thank ou for having me. melissa:teve cohen's sec insider trading scandal gets the hollywood treatment on cbs, but is the glamourization making it seem more acceptable on wall street? we're going to explain that coming up next. plus, how dare you use less gas. states prepare to slam hybrid and electric car owners with special taxes just for them! you won't believe it. we've got the details. piles of "money" coming up. ♪ ♪ this is $100,000.

we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally.

>> you and your firm, you're not really interested in medicinal drugs or curing disease, you're just a man who makes money. even if you have to cheat. >> i'm an investor. i trade stocks. but if i know i picked a loser, i have to dump it. either way i always win. melissa: are you kidding me? is that ridiculous?

does it sound a little familiar? that's because in hollywood nothing is sexier than a little insider trading. that is a clip from "person of interest." it appears to be ripped right from the headlines in sac capital's scandal. is it undermining the severity of the crime? joining me now to discuss the power of money is harvey pitt who knows better, former sec chairman reals have richard roth, criminal defense attorney and fox's own charles payne. charles, i'll start with you. i am almost on the side of steve cohen now. [laughter] i'm like starting to feel sorry for him. if cbs is going to take some half-baked drama and go out and rip from the headlines, is everybody forgetting he hasn't been convicted? he hasn't even been charged. >> well, yeah, b that's -- yeah, that never matters, particularly in hollywood. they convict a whole lot of

people in a whole lot of industries. wait until the wolf of wall street comes out. that might be -- you talk about glamourizing the whole thing. but it is interesting that they do these things. i think when it's all aid and done, a lot of -- said and done, a lot of times will not necessarily be on steve cohen's side, but they'd come away saying maybe what he did wasn't so bad, but there's a way of doing that. it's till a sort of glamour aspect to it, and it might not be so bad if i could get away with it. melissa: you're saying they glam orize it rather than making it seem criminal. harvey, is this fair? i mean, he hasn't been charged, he hasn't been convicted. we don't even know if he's done anything wrong, yet hollywood already has cast someone to play him as a villain who wants to make money. that's evil, by the way, just in case you didn't know. [laughter] >> well, it may not be fair, but it may be fair comment at least

given all that's gone on with sac and with the consent decree against the firm of sac. there's obviously been some misconduct there, or they wouldn't have been charged. so to that extent, it's fair. um, i think the way it gets presented on tv is absolutely misstating what insiderrer trading is like -- insider trading is like and what happens. melissa: what's wrong with it? what's wrong with the way they're stating it? >> well, there's nothing glamorous about insider trading. people trade on inside information because they're desperate, or they're stupid or both. and in this particular case anybody who would undertake to do that is running the risk of severe jail time by -- witness what's been done in new york.

he's gotten 70 some odd convictions either by trying cases or by people pleading to counts. so the fact is if you do insider trading, you go to jail. melissa: richard, let me ask you. steve cohen has been pretty much convicted. eliot spitzer, of allpeople, said recently he's like the john gotti of the hedge fund world, and what he meant is he's so insulated by so many people within his organization, he may or may not have actual knowledge of what's been going on. but the fact that he's being compared to john gotti, and that imagery has been held over by other people and repeated again, and here i am saying it, so there you go, i'm part of the problem. is this fair? >> it really isn't fair. here hasn't been indied, he hasn't been arrested. certainly, mar toe mow who we know was indicted by the federal authorities for insider trading is a, if you willproper defendant. steve cohen, say what you want about him.

right now there's really nothing against him personally. but it is fair game, you know? as mr. pitt said, if he's in the press, and he is almost every day between his artworks and his house in the hamptons and all the alleged insider trading, then it is fair game. art follows life, so the tv does pick this up and gets good ratings because of it. you name it, they get it. melissa: charles payne, is it maybe a bad idea he's rolling around in his rolls royces and buying a new house in the hamptons? >> well, he's certainly thumbing his nose at the system. melissa: little bit. >> if he is guilty, saying you can't touch me no matter what. melissa: the gotti. >> the teflon aspect of it. but from the viewers' point of view, we don't ever see how these guys look 20 years down the road, some of these infamous real cases that have gone on and people who probably couldn't get their life together. again, for the viewer it feels like this guy's the master of the universeecause, obviously,

he's been convicted already. but still they go on, and they're powerful and rich, and they fly away in a private jet. melissa: that's the final point for our audience. it's so hard to tell as a viewer is he guilty because he's trading and he's making money and as the other actor said, he doesn't care about whether the drugs really work or not which, by the way, if he's an investor, he's supposed to be after profit, is he guilty because he likes money? is that what you get? do you think people really understand what he's truly being sought for? the idea that he's trading on illegal information? >> yeah. i think there's, um, absolutely nothing wrong with liking money and trying to earn it legititely, of course. but that's what makes this country great. people can do that. so that part of it isn't the problem. it's doing it by cheating and cutting corners. and if that occurred here -- and it is crucial to remember that he has not been charged -- but

if that were true here, he's going to get slammed, and he should be. melissa: yeah. okay, u guys were great. i wish we had more time. thanks to all of you for coming on. we appreciate it. >> thanks, melissa. melissa: let no good deed go unpunished. why the tax man is demanding wads of money from hybrid and electric car owners only. we're going to explain this coming up next because at the end of the day, i don't care what anyone says, it's all about "money." ♪ ♪ this is america.

we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day afr day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] e pill eachmorning. 24 hos. zero heartbur

♪ ♪ melissa: well, that's an appropriate song because there are no free rides here. drivers thinking they've saved money by being an eco-friendly car might be in for a rude awakening. gas tax revenues are tumbling across the country, and states are ready to make up for it by slapping new taxes on electric and hybrid cars. so will this ruin one of the main reasons to buy them along with the companies who make the vehicles? with me is dade kreutzer -- david kreutzer, i apologize ahead of time, from the heritage foundation. hopefully, i did a better job

than last time. in any case, what do you think about this? i mean, i was shocked to read that they wld dare slap an individual tax on people -- i mean, it's already going on in virginia and washington. and, basically, they're saying you aren't selling off as much at the pump, so you're not really paying the same amount of taxes as everyone else out there on the road. so up front we're going to hit you with a special tax because we know you're not going to the gas pump as much. wow. >> hey, ihink we ought to look at it as a smug tax to cut down on the toxic levels of sanctimony from these drivers. [laughter] we have three types of vehicles. you have the standard conventional hybrid that runs gasoline, and the gasoline engine charges the battery. you have the plug-in hybrid like the chevy volt, and you can run that on electricity until the batteries run out, and then we have the pure electric vehicles ke the nissan leaf and the

tesla. those last two categories, the plug-in hybrid and the pure electric, you know, they don't pay road use taxes. the convention hybrids, you know, they use gas like all the other cars. i think what's coming back to bite them is they oversold, you know, how much fuel they were saving and how great they were for cutting back on imports of petroleum. and so now they're paying the tax on that. but a 40 mile per gallon hybrid car uses the same amount of fuel as a pure gasoline car. and they both pay the tax and both get to go in the hov lane or neither pay the tax. melissa: i mean, to me i'm not sure that's the core issue. when i'm caught between whose side am i on, you know, the tree huggers versus the tax collector, it's tough, i mean, i've got to tell you. but the tax collector coming back in for that last pound of flesh, you know, i just need one more drop of blood from your

veins. i mean, it kind of -- do they not think that there's going to be blowback if you have a punishment for having a car that doesn't use as much gas? that's -- i -- no? >> yeah. but, you know, like i said, they'rnot making it --hey're making a distinction between good gas mileage hybrids and gasoline and diesel cars. if they each get the same amount of mileage, each one is either underpaying, if you want to look at it that way, but they're being treated differently. you know, i don't know. are we going to go to a system where you pay more the better gas mileage you getin or maybe we can all have the ez pass and we just pay per mile that we drive. melissa: i mean, we could. there's just so much irony involved in this. i don't know what a fair wage would be. i mean, do you assess someone a penalty when they buy the car because it doesn't use fossil el? i mean, the whole idea is that, in theory, we're supposed to be encouraging people not to use

fossil piewl fuels because someone believes they're evil. not me, someone. so we've decided we're going to reward people. and so here's somebody who's doing their best, so you punish them by hitting them with another gas -- with another tax. your point is that they're using the highways, so they should pay for it. then it takes away the reward unless you're just doing itout of the goodness of your heart which i guess is probably -- >> i'm not saying that's my point. melissa: that's their point. >> that's the point of the people levying the tax. you know, this lump sum tax doesn't make an adjustment to people who commute 100 miles per day in a hybrid versus somebody who commutes 5 miles a day in a suburban. the brid may be using more fuel. melissa: that's true. if you're going to be punitive, there's kind of no fair way to do it. i think that's kind of the way it can -- i don't know. there's just so much irony this be -- in it, i can barely take it. >> it is ironic. thanks for having me.

melissa: rumors are swirling around where tim tebow may land. details on which team may be tebowing for husband arrival. that's coming up next. you can never have too much "money." ♪ ♪

melissa: it is time for a little fun with "spare change." today we aren't joined with our two guests. thank you for joining us. buckle up. first, it's been a strange journey and now it is finally over for tim tebow. the art has an offer from the orlando predators. they are an arena football team. i guess they are back, but so far nothing from the nfl. what do you think? are you a big fan of the orlando predators? do you have a t-shirt? >> i have a jersey. melissa: okay, great. >> he's a great guy, he represents a lot of things that should be in the nfl, but what happens now -- whether it's arena or nfl offer, its kind of

unclear. >> many say that they thought that tebow would improve as a quarterback. it's like sending a movie star back to acting school. melissa: or go back to high school and do a high school play and maybe we will let you back into daytime soap operas or back to youtube and maybe we will let you come back. >> is very sad how it happed. they brought him in for this exclusive position. and they didn't really use him for that and then to utilize out and let them go, it was very interesting. melissa: there are lots of ladies in orlando. it will all be good. okay, check out this picture of a fox reporter covering this game. what is this over her? see the baseball. she decided to take a picture of

herself during batting practice. she caught a shot of a fly ball missing her head by what looks like millimeters. it did not hit her. or we would not be making fun of this. it would be very serious and we are not laughing. >> she was taking pictures during batting practice and the coaches walked out of there until finally she turned her back. melissa: there is no way that was a picture that her family would want to see. melissa: this one might have been even more dangerous, i'm not sure.

>> she could be the next jane andrews. melissa: she could. she looks a little bit like that. right here on the show, are you saying it's rod? on the show? >> i'm not an essay that. melissa: okay, michael jordan got married again on saturday in palm beach florida. they had 300 guests looting family and friends. were you invited? >> that was my big shock. i'm a native of palm beach and that's my hometown. melissa: wn't at your church? >> it was at my home church. melissa: why did he get married there? no? >> well, he has been part of the

paris club but not been to palm beach. >> the thought that he actually built a 30,000 square foot home is pretty >> the following is a paid advertisement from star vista entertainment and time life. >> ♪ you're the meaning in my life ♪ ♪ you're the inspiration >> ♪ that's how much i feel >> ♪ feel for you, baby >> ♪ how much i el >> ♪ well, i need your touch >> intimate moments, cherished memories, unforgettable romances, the language of lo can be spoken in many ways. and nothing ignites your emotions like the power of love. >> ♪ i'll always love you ♪ for the rest of my days >> ♪ a one in a million